On June 11 2013 05:23 Komei wrote:I think rEalGuapo is very correct. Health and fitness are two different things and sometimes they can work against each other.
It has been difficult do study into how much exercise and what type of exercise is best for the human body. But if you read the studies there is starting to appear a convergence.
Our bodies evolved, as did all animals, with 'exercise' build-in to our bodies.
Our bodies expect to have to preform a certain amount of 'work'. Sitting behind a desk, computer or tv for most of the day is not what evolution molded our bodies to do.
Studies show that people who cycle to work live significantly longer. This is a statistical observation. In the mean time we know how the mechanism works. Better heart and lungs and less overweight, etc.
This exercise at very low intensity, honestly it is recovery intensity at like 60% of max heart rate, is very important for our human bodies (and for many pets as well). And in fact it would be better that we do a whole lot of it. And yes, it doesn't improve our performance in sports much. So most people consider it to be a waste of time.
Our bodies also require some exercise of more intensity. Let's call this aerobic intensity. Say 70 to 80% of max hr.
Debate is up about how much is too much. There are some studies that show that doing more of this than 3x a week 30 minutes can be harmful. Especially if it is in the upper range intensity-wise. But this research is still not widely accepted, partially because many people just have problems accepting our bodies don't benefit from doing intense effort marathons and triathlons and that even 10k races might be overdoing it.
The details about this are that heart muscle gets damaged and the question is if the recovery from this, which it does, helps long-term health and age expectancy or not.
Third is anaerobic cardio. This is the stuff that can get you overtrained really easily. (which is different from weight lifting where overtraining is quite hard). Many beginners actually start doing cardio mostly in this range. Their aerobic engine is not very big or they are overweight and thus they exercise with high intensity.
Surely some anaerobic activity is something the human body 'likes' to deal with. A 100m sprint or a football match with short bursts of intensity and then recovery.
But the question here again is how much is too much and how little is too little. Obviously more is not always better.
When running a 5k race most people will be running anaerobically for most of it. And that's often a 20 minute effort.
The big problem here seems to be people with small aerobic engines always training like they race. Call them weekend warriors, or people who buy into the 'HIIT is good for beginners' group.
Training anaerobically trains the anaerobic system. It makes you deal better with having lactate build up in your body.
But improvements to the anaerobic system come at the cost of less improvements to the aerobic system.
Almost all professional endurance athletes train at low intensity 'steady state cardio' for the most part. This has actually been the old paradigm. You see it a lot in running where runners are trained by doing more and more miles.
Same in cycling where long slow rides are considered to be the foundation of a training plan.
This is because in endurance your aerobic engine determines most of your performance. Improving your mitochondria, getting more capillaries, conditioning the body to burn fat as efficiently as possible, they are key.
But all this is as slow if not slower than 'building muscle'. Beginners seem to have the 'no pain no gain'-mentality and they see improvements by training at high intensity. Maybe they see increase in performance because they adjust mentally and manage to push their bodies more.
In running you always see people think there is a need for speedwork, that doing sprints improves their 5k time, that they need to do strides or that they need to run at a certain pace to train speed into their mind.
But in the end a 5k performance all comes down on the oxygen management of the body and speedwork is unimportant.
Interval training and intense workouts surely have their place in certain training programs. For a professional dealing with lactate build-up is an important factor in winning races. But for beginners and amateurs they are overrated in their ability to improve endurance.
As for losing weight, the calories you burn doing a long bike ride can never come close to the cardio burned by the max no. of sprints you can do. Running fast and sprints are a big risk factor for getting injured. And nothing harms your health and fitness more than being injured.
Sprints are pretty cool as they are full body strength workouts for your muscles. But cardio-wise, they don't do much.
Someone like Usain Bolt will almost never do sprints as training. What he will do is squats etc for muscle strength, low intensity cardio for more endurance (at the end of the 100m every sprinter will be slowing down because of fatigue) and technique drills for better running form.
Same is true for someone like Michael Phelps.
Same is true for almost every running distance. If you run 400m, you never run 400m in training. You run either less or more. If you run 1k you never run 1k in training, either less or more. If you run 5k, same.
Also, anecdotal 'evidence' from people's experiences with some cardio training plan are fine and all, but they don't mean anything. If someone tells me 'steady state cardio never helped me' then that doesn't mean anything to me because unless he measured it he can't know it. Both the training plan he actually did and the effect it had on his body are two unknowns unless they are carefully measured.
Another factor, I see some people do 'I did treadmill running a lot'. But isn't that extremely boring? And you live in Norway. It's summer right now. I'd be touring around every third day on my bike if I could. Exploring, enjoying the weather, the scenery and the nature. Do you know every nice place to go to within 50 km of your place? How many places are there around your city&town where you have never been?
If it isn't fun to do 'exercise' how are you going to last? Maybe there's a reason why most people are unhealthy and out of shape.
Having fun and being consistent are more important then the theoretically most perfect way to improve performance.
Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 11:34 Jerubaal wrote:
Give me a reason why I should do steady state cardio over sprinting or other aerobic calisthenicy things.
So to be short:
1) Less risk of injury
2) Improves different systems of your body which are more important for everyday fitness and health
3) Able to absorb more volume
4) Able to burn more calories
5) Builds your aerobic engine faster, for better performance
6) Less risk of overtraining/burnout
7) It's great for recovery from training or injury (better blood flow to damaged tissues).
8) During everyday activity you never feel winded, feel like you have a big overhead of oxygen
9) You feel great afterways rather than exhausted (assuming HIIT).
10) It's a lifestyle, not an exercise regime.
EPT
